Johnny Depp’s legal team calls Amber Heard’s mistrial claims baseless, says $10 Million verdict should stand

Johnny Depp’s lawyers have commented on Amber Heard’s mistrial claims. They have urged the judge handing the defamation case to leave the $10m judgment intact. The comments from Depp’s attorneys came after the actress’ lawyers requested the judge to set the verdict aside on the grounds that one juror on the panel was misidentified.

According to the Guardian, the ‘Pirates of the Carribean’ actor’s lawyers have disputed the arguments made by the ‘Aquaman’ actress’ team in the court papers filed on Monday. They said that Heard team’s complaints about the juror’s identity are irrelevant. And, it shouldn’t be considered a mistrial.

A few days ago, Heard’s lawyers filed motions in the court asking the judge to toss out the verdicts made in the defamation case. Upon hearing of the motions, Depp’s lawyers filed their response on Monday. They argued that the jury verdict was fair and the jury form allowed the jurors to be specific about the libellous statements made by the two Hollywood stars. They also said that it was too late for Heard’s team to object to the verdict.

According to the court papers, a summon was sent to a 77-year-old man to be a jury in the case, however, his 52-year-old son, who has the same name and lives at the same address, took his spot and acted as a jury for the case. They said that if Heard’s team had concerns, they should have spoken up at the time. Judge Penney Azcarate is yet to decide on the motions made by Heard’s team. 

Also read: ‘James Bond’ theme composer Monty Norman, 94, passes away

The document read, “Though understandably displeased with the outcome of trial, Ms. Heard has identified no legitimate basis to set aside in any respect the jury’s decision. Here, the verdict was well supported by the overwhelming evidence, consistent with the law, and should not be set aside. Mr. Depp respectfully submits that the Court should deny Ms. Heard’s Post-Trial Motions, which verge into the frivolous. The court should reject Ms. Heard’s baseless contention that the damages award was excessive and supported by evidence.”